Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• list_issuesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('List discrepancies'), but does not disclose side effects, return format, pagination, or limits. For a tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that communicates the tool's purpose, resource, and optional filter without any wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essential information. However, it omits what the returned discrepancies look like (e.g., fields, format) and any pagination or ordering details, leaving some ambiguity. A more complete description would describe the output structure.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that the output is 'discrepancies' and that severity defaults to 'all'. It largely repeats the parameter information, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool lists discrepancies from a stored kiyas report by reportId, with optional severity filtering. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discrepancies from a stored kiyas report'), and implies the tool is used after a prior compare call, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'compare' and 'get_diff_report'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides context by mentioning 'stored kiyas report by reportId', indicating a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., compare, get_diff_report) or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage is implied but not fully spelled out.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_diff_reportA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the default behavior, what is returned (artifact path and inline content), and includes a note about HTML size. This provides adequate transparency for a retrieval tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by specifics. Every sentence earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema, the description partially explains return values (artifact path and inline content) but lacks detail on the structure of the response. For a simple tool with 3 parameters, this is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining defaults (format defaults to json) and the conditional behavior of includeContent based on format, which is not in the schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool fetches a stored kiyas report by reportId, with options for format and content inclusion. This distinguishes it from siblings 'compare' (which likely creates reports) and 'list_issues' (which lists issues).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use each format ('Defaults to JSON; pass format=html to fetch the rendered report') and notes that includeContent defaults differ by format. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the purpose is well-defined.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• compareA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it notes the evaluation metrics (90% mutation recall, zero false positives), default behaviors (adaptive scale, auto-detected dev server, color scheme detection), resource costs (multiple runs increase cost), and the nature of the output (reportId). No annotation contradiction exists.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose and key options. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured (e.g., bulleted) format could improve readability. It avoids redundancy with the schema.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input alternatives, output (reportId), dependencies (Figma MCP server), default behaviors, and performance guarantees. The only minor gap is the omission of the exact report schema, but that is delegated to sibling tools appropriately.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning by grouping mutually exclusive parameters (figma vs designImage, target vs component), explaining defaults, and providing contextual notes (e.g., 'no Figma token needed for designImage'). This goes beyond the schema's field definitions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: comparing a design against a rendered implementation and returning discrepancies. It specifies two alternative input methods (figma or designImage, target or component) and mentions the output (reportId), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_diff_report and list_issues.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter combination, including alternatives (e.g., 'Provide figma OR designImage', 'either target OR component'), prerequisites (no Figma token for designImage), and links to sibling tools for further processing. It also explains how to handle authentication via authState.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.